Top Posting & ****s who can't quote

Top posting goes against the natural order of reading.


The excuse they just want dont want to have to scroll down is BS.
You have to scroll down to the end to read the thread in many cases.
Once you have done that you are at the end anyway. So put your reply
there where it belongs and stop being a lazy ****. If you dont read
thru the thread to the end, you have no business responding If you
don't know what you't responding too.


Top posters are just plain lazy/stubborn.


Why is top posting stupid? No go back to my first sentenceto see the
answer See.. isn't top posting just plain stupid!

That does not describe how the thread gets created nor how they are
read. These threads don't get written in someone's office and posted
fully written on servers for people to read. They are organic
outgrowths of the contributions of many people. Almost no one reads
the thread as a single piece of writing, most read each part as it
gets added. For some types of writing top posting simply works
better. This would be one such example. Anyone replying to it is
almost guaranteed to write their own fully self contained paragraph in
which they either tell me I'm wrong or say "you're right". There is
no reason to put that at the bottom and make the 13th person have to
hunt for it and pgdn over and over again when the simple solution is
to just put the new material right here at the top where is just POPs
into view of each new set of eyeballs. All the old stuff becomes
little more then the appendix. If you were writing a book you would
not put the appendix at the begriming and the actual content at the
end.

On 30 Dec 2009 13:57:21 GMT, genious wrote:

Top posting goes against the natural order of reading.


The excuse they just want dont want to have to scroll down is BS.
You have to scroll down to the end to read the thread in many cases.
Once you have done that you are at the end anyway. So put your reply
there where it belongs and stop being a lazy ****. If you dont read
thru the thread to the end, you have no business responding If you
don't know what you't responding too.


Top posters are just plain lazy/stubborn.


Why is top posting stupid? No go back to my first sentenceto see the
answer See.. isn't top posting just plain stupid!

Ashton Crusher wrote:

That does not describe how the thread gets created nor how they are
read. These threads don't get written in someone's office and posted
fully written on servers for people to read. They are organic
outgrowths of the contributions of many people. Almost no one reads
the thread as a single piece of writing, most read each part as it
gets added. For some types of writing top posting simply works
better. This would be one such example. Anyone replying to it is
almost guaranteed to write their own fully self contained paragraph in
which they either tell me I'm wrong or say "you're right". There is
no reason to put that at the bottom and make the 13th person have to
hunt for it and pgdn over and over again when the simple solution is
to just put the new material right here at the top where is just POPs
into view of each new set of eyeballs. All the old stuff becomes
little more then the appendix. If you were writing a book you would
not put the appendix at the begriming and the actual content at the
end.

On 30 Dec 2009 13:57:21 GMT, genious wrote:

Top posting goes against the natural order of reading.


The excuse they just want dont want to have to scroll down is BS.
You have to scroll down to the end to read the thread in many cases.
Once you have done that you are at the end anyway. So put your reply
there where it belongs and stop being a lazy ****. If you dont read
thru the thread to the end, you have no business responding If you
don't know what you't responding too.


Top posters are just plain lazy/stubborn.


Why is top posting stupid? No go back to my first sentenceto see the
answer See.. isn't top posting just plain stupid!

Yes.
I agree .. but to what ?
That top posting idiot butt-muncher just threw chinese at ya!
Who the hell am I responding too?
Him?
The him before?

Bottom post, you ****-head!
--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Death wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

That does not describe how the thread gets created nor how they are
read. These threads don't get written in someone's office and posted
fully written on servers for people to read. They are organic
outgrowths of the contributions of many people. Almost no one reads
the thread as a single piece of writing, most read each part as it
gets added. For some types of writing top posting simply works
better. This would be one such example. Anyone replying to it is
almost guaranteed to write their own fully self contained paragraph in
which they either tell me I'm wrong or say "you're right". There is
no reason to put that at the bottom and make the 13th person have to
hunt for it and pgdn over and over again when the simple solution is
to just put the new material right here at the top where is just POPs
into view of each new set of eyeballs. All the old stuff becomes
little more then the appendix. If you were writing a book you would
not put the appendix at the begriming and the actual content at the
end.

On 30 Dec 2009 13:57:21 GMT, genious wrote:

Top posting goes against the natural order of reading.


The excuse they just want dont want to have to scroll down is BS.
You have to scroll down to the end to read the thread in many cases.
Once you have done that you are at the end anyway. So put your reply
there where it belongs and stop being a lazy ****. If you dont read
thru the thread to the end, you have no business responding If you
don't know what you't responding too.


Top posters are just plain lazy/stubborn.


Why is top posting stupid? No go back to my first sentenceto see the
answer See.. isn't top posting just plain stupid!

Yes.
I agree .. but to what ?
That top posting idiot butt-muncher just threw chinese at ya!
Who the hell am I responding too?
Him?
The him before?

Bottom post, you ****-head!

Do you see how that works?
Either I gotta totally snip genious, or I gotta do a whole ****ing lot
of editing to get the flow of the article in place.
It's ****ing stupid...top posting.
It makes to sense in any kind of ****ing reading done by humans that
aren't whipped daily.
--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news
That does not describe how the thread gets created

Whose talking about how the thread gets created?
And FYI, I had to scroll down to see what you were replying to because you
TOP-POSTED.

QED.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:03:23 -0000, "Gordon"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news
That does not describe how the thread gets created

Whose talking about how the thread gets created?
And FYI, I had to scroll down to see what you were replying to because you
TOP-POSTED.

QED.

That's fine. But there could have been 5 others that have been
following the thread as it built, saw no reason to reply so we don't
see them, and were able to just read the stuff that Popped up on top
and move on. Just because something is better for you doesn't mean
it's better for everyone else. That's why I don't care much for the
netnazi mentality that "you must do it MY way". I have no problem
dealing with ALL the ways people post, it's just not difficult to
handle the differences and I see no reason why others need to be
dictated to just to conform to a particular sub-groups desires.
Particularly in a "democratic-anarchy" medium like Usenet. If this
was YOUR server with YOUR forum set up on it you'd be entitled to make
and enforce whatever rules you wanted. The beauty of Usenet is that it
is mostly free from such dictatorship.

Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.

Norm


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:03:23 -0000, "Gordon"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news
That does not describe how the thread gets created

Whose talking about how the thread gets created?
And FYI, I had to scroll down to see what you were replying to because you
TOP-POSTED.

QED.

That's fine. But there could have been 5 others that have been
following the thread as it built, saw no reason to reply so we don't
see them, and were able to just read the stuff that Popped up on top
and move on. Just because something is better for you doesn't mean
it's better for everyone else. That's why I don't care much for the
netnazi mentality that "you must do it MY way". I have no problem
dealing with ALL the ways people post, it's just not difficult to
handle the differences and I see no reason why others need to be
dictated to just to conform to a particular sub-groups desires.
Particularly in a "democratic-anarchy" medium like Usenet. If this
was YOUR server with YOUR forum set up on it you'd be entitled to make
and enforce whatever rules you wanted. The beauty of Usenet is that it
is mostly free from such dictatorship.

"Norman Conquest" wrote in message
...
Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.


Idiot.

On 12/31/09, Gordon posted:
"Norman Conquest" wrote in message
...
Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.


Idiot.

Now that's funny.

--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/09, Gordon posted:
"Norman Conquest" wrote in message
...
Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.


Idiot.

Now that's funny.

:-)

On 12/31/09, Gordon posted:
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/09, Gordon posted:
"Norman Conquest" wrote in message
...
Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.


Idiot.

Now that's funny.

:-)

Even funnier...

--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com

On 12/31/09, Gene E. Bloch posted:
On 12/31/09, Gordon posted:
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/09, Gordon posted:
"Norman Conquest" wrote in message
...
Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.


Idiot.

Now that's funny.

:-)

Even funnier...

Or even funnier: I suddenly realized that I can't tell if you were
playing with Norman Conquest's post, or if you were inadvertently
proving that he was right.

I assumed the latter, thus my reply, and so on recursively.

Either way, I'm outta here - it's time to get ready for tonight's
events, so Happy New Year to both Gordon and Norman Conquest, and to me
and to the whole NG.

See y'all next year.

--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com

Hmmm... Since we are using wider and wider screens, maybe we should
be SIDE posting! Another argument for top posting is it saves wear and tear
on my scroll wheel...

Dave

"Norman Conquest" wrote in message
...
Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.

Norm


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:03:23 -0000, "Gordon"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news That does not describe how the thread gets created

Whose talking about how the thread gets created?
And FYI, I had to scroll down to see what you were replying to because
you
TOP-POSTED.

QED.

That's fine. But there could have been 5 others that have been
following the thread as it built, saw no reason to reply so we don't
see them, and were able to just read the stuff that Popped up on top
and move on. Just because something is better for you doesn't mean
it's better for everyone else. That's why I don't care much for the
netnazi mentality that "you must do it MY way". I have no problem
dealing with ALL the ways people post, it's just not difficult to
handle the differences and I see no reason why others need to be
dictated to just to conform to a particular sub-groups desires.
Particularly in a "democratic-anarchy" medium like Usenet. If this
was YOUR server with YOUR forum set up on it you'd be entitled to make
and enforce whatever rules you wanted. The beauty of Usenet is that it
is mostly free from such dictatorship.

On 1/02/10, FiOS-Dave posted:
I think that this Hmmm... Since we are using wider and wider
is a great idea. screens, maybe we should be SIDE posting!
And we can have arguments Another argument for top posting
about left side vs right is it saves wear and tear on my
side posting! scroll wheel...

Dave

"Norman Conquest" wrote in message
...
Well said - absolutely correct! But no doubt some twerp will disagree.

Norm


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:03:23 -0000, "Gordon"
wrote:


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news That does not describe how the thread gets created

Whose talking about how the thread gets created?
And FYI, I had to scroll down to see what you were replying to because you
TOP-POSTED.

QED.

That's fine. But there could have been 5 others that have been
following the thread as it built, saw no reason to reply so we don't
see them, and were able to just read the stuff that Popped up on top
and move on. Just because something is better for you doesn't mean
it's better for everyone else. That's why I don't care much for the
netnazi mentality that "you must do it MY way". I have no problem
dealing with ALL the ways people post, it's just not difficult to
handle the differences and I see no reason why others need to be
dictated to just to conform to a particular sub-groups desires.
Particularly in a "democratic-anarchy" medium like Usenet. If this
was YOUR server with YOUR forum set up on it you'd be entitled to make
and enforce whatever rules you wanted. The beauty of Usenet is that it
is mostly free from such dictatorship.



--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com